1809.] PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY-THE DUKE RESIGNS. 509 without emotion of shameless violations of decency." 11 * The Speaker gravely records an example of the universal interest in the ridiculous correspondence of the duke with his mistress-" The joke in the streets among the people is, not to cry 'Heads or Tails,' when they toss up halfpence, but 'Duke or Darling." The Debates in the House are so necessarily coloured by party-feelings that we cannot arrive at any just conclusions from their perusal. There were, however, two men in the House, of singular fairness, whose private opinions during the course of the inquiry may be referred to. Sir Samuel Romilly has this entry in his Diary: "It was established, beyond the possibility of doubt, that the duke had permitted Mrs Clarke, his mistress, to interfere in military promotions; that he had given commissions at her recommendation; and that she had taken money for the recommendations. That the duke knew she took money, or that he knew that the establishment, which he had set on foot for her, was partly supported with the money thus illegally procured by her, did not appear otherwise than from her evidence."+ Sir Arthur Wellesley, on the 17th of February, wrote to the duke of Richmond, "The love-letters have created a terrible impression. They prove that the duke allowed Mrs. Clarke to talk to him on the claims and requests of officers, and that she had prevailed upon him to recommend Mr. O'Meara to the king as a preacher. . . . The impression is strong against the duke both in and out of the House. People are outrageous in; the country on account of the immorality of his life, which makes no impression in town." § On the 19th sir Arthur writes, "I am convinced that he cannot continue to hold his office, and that if the present ministers endeavour to support him in it, they will be beat in Parliament." || On the 17th of March, Mr. Perceval moved, "That the House, having examined the evidence in the investigations of the duke of York's conduct, and having found that personal corruption, and connivance at corruption, had been imputed to him, are of opinion that the imputation is wholly without foundation." The motion was carried by 278 to 196. It was not such an acquittal—such a declaration of innocence, the duke deemed it—as would allow the Commander-in-chief to retain his office, in defiance of public opinion. On the 20th of March Mr. Perceval announced in the House of Commons the resignation of the duke of York. The king communicated to the minister that his son had resigned his office; but he added "that he must ever regret any circumstances which have deprived him of the duke of York's services, in a situation where his zealous and impartial conduct had been no less conspicuous than his strict integrity." All men were ready to admit that the Commander-in-chief had been assiduous in the discharge of his duties; and had done much to improve the condition of the soldier. Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, we shall be able to prove that the business of his office is conducted in the most regular manner." Of the nature of the corruption sir Arthur gives an emphatic opinion: "There has appeared in the last two days a general system of swindling, applicable to all the offices of the State, in which Mrs. Clarke has been most active, and a *Life, vol. iii. p. 402. 66 + Lord Colchester's "Diary," vol. ii. p. 174. The Speaker, not familiar with the slang of the streets, writes "Heads and Tails," &c. 64 + Diary," February 13. § "Supplementary Despatches," vol. vi. p. 575. Ibid., p. 579. 510 LORD COCHRANE'S ENTERPRIZE IN AIX ROADS. [1809. great gainer. . . . These transactions, which have deservedly created so much indignation, have been carried on by the scum of the earth."* Colonel Wardle became a popular idol; but he quickly sank into contempt, when an upholsterer obtained a verdict against him of 20007. for the cost of furnishing Mrs. Clarke's house. The news of a great naval success came in April, to furnish some compensation for the disasters of the retreat to Corunna, and to inspire a confidence that Britain still held the empire of the sea. Thomas lord Cochrane was a popular favorite as Member for Westminster; and he was looked up to by the nation as one who by his extraordinary daring gave promise of being the true successor of Nelson. Although opposed to the government, he was chosen by the Admiralty to conduct a most difficult and dangerous enterprize, under the orders of lord Gambier. Serving with lord Collingwood, in the Mediterranean, he performed a series of the most brilliant achievements in the "Impérieuse" frigate. He was selected in 1809, to conduct an attack by fire-ships on the French squadron, which was blockaded in Aix Roads, by our Channel fleet. He performed this task in a way in which few commanders could have done so much by skill and intrepidity. Ten line of battle ships and four frigates, with a gun ship, were moored behind a boom, half a mile in length, in a deep channel, their flanks covered by a shoal on one side, and by batteries on the other. Cochrane went in with his fire-ships and frigates on the night of the 11th of April. The explosion vessel broke the boom and scattered terror and destruction through the French squadron. Four ships of the line were taken at their anchorage, and were blown up. The remainder slipped their cables and ran on shore. Captain Cochrane made signal to his admiral, when daylight came, that seven other vessels might be destroyed. Lord Gambier thought the attempt too hazardous. In Parliament lord Cochrane refused to concur in the vote of thanks to lord Gambier, who was consequently, in 1810, tried by Court-Martial and acquitted of neglecting or delaying to take measures for completing the destruction which his officer had partially accomplished. The charges against lord Gambier have been revived by the statements of lord Dundonald in his Autobiography; and the admiral has been defended in his Memoirs recently published. The controversy is of too professional a nature to allow of any examination here. The people of 1809 rejoiced that there was a seaman capable of such enterprizes. The people of 1860, when lord Dundonald was borne to Westminster Abbey, after a long life of undeserved obloquy and neglect, lamented that the party feelings of a time of violent politics-perhaps something also of his own impetuous and independent charactershould have made the exploit of Basque Roads the last of his services to his own country. After the forces under Junot had evacuated Portugal according to the conditions of the Convention of Cintra, sir John Cradock was left in the command of the British troops in that country. Soult invaded the northern provinces from Galicia, and took possession of Oporto on the 29th of March. The Regency at Lisbon earnestly implored the aid of the British government; and it was determined to render that aid most effectual by entrusting the * 46 1809.] AUSTRIA DECLARES WAR AGAINST FRANCE. 511 conduct of the war to the one general who appeared capable of coping with its difficulties. Sir John Cradock was removed to Gibraltar; and, on the 2nd of April, sir Arthur Wellesley was ordered to replace that officer, and to proceed without delay to Lisbon. When Napoleon suddenly gave up the pursuit of sir John Moore, on the receipt of intelligence of the disposition of Austria to renew the conflict with him, he lingered for a little while on the frontier, and then proceeded to Paris. Here he made ample preparations for another campaign in Germany. The German people were strongly excited by the resistance in Spain to the domination of France. It was probably difficult for the Austrian government not to go along with this popular spirit. On the 6th of April the archduke Charles issued a proclamation in which he said the liberty of Europe had taken refuge under their banners. On the 9th Austria declared war against Bavaria, the ally of France; and the Austrian armies crossed the Inn. Napoleon left Paris on the 13th of April. On the 17th he was at Donauwerth, on the Danube. The struggle instantly began, which was terminated by the peace of Vienna on the 14th of October. On the 22nd of April sir Arthur Wellesley landed at Lisbon. His work in the Peninsula was not done, till, in February, 1814, he had cleared Portugal and Spain from their invaders. There was no delay or indecision in the movements of sir Arthur Wellesley from the day when he set his foot on Portuguese ground. His business was first to drive the French from Oporto. On the 9th of May he moved with sixteen thousand British troops from Coimbra. On the 11th 512 SIR ARTHUR WELLESLEY IN LISBON-PASSAGE OF THE DOURO. [1809. he crossed the Douro. To take sixteen thousand troops across a river is not an easy task under any circumstances; but "how to pass a river, deep, swift, more than three hundred yards wide, and in the face of ten thousand veterans guarding the opposite bank,"-this is the question asked by the first of military historians. On the convent height stood "a great captain, searching with an eagle glance the river, the city, and the country around." Sir Arthur saw where he could force a passage, "his means being as scanty as his resolution was great, yet with his genius they sufficed."* On the 12th the British obtained a victory, which compelled Soult to retreat from Oporto, leaving many sick and wounded. The conqueror published a proclamation calling upon the inhabitants to be merciful to the wounded and prisoners. The French in their retreat were harassed and killed by the people of the villages. The roads were strewed with the carcases of horses and men who were put to death before the British advanced guards could save them. "This last circumstance," says sir Arthur, "is the natural effect of the species of warfare which the enemy have carried on in this country. Their soldiers have plundered and murdered the peasantry at their pleasure.”† Thus far had the British general accomplished his great task with surpassing skill. He told his story with his accustomed modesty, in his Despatch of the 12th of May. The praise is for his officers and his men: "They have marched in four days over eighty miles of most difficult country, have gained many important positions, and have engaged and defeated three different bodies of the enemy's troops." The Opposition in Parliament, with few exceptions, were, as they too long continued to be, so hopeless of success, and so unjust and ungenerous in refusing to recognize the merits of the commander who was opening a new career for the army of England as glorious as the triumphs of her fleets, that we can scarcely wonder at the vexation of sir Arthur Wellesley, when he read the parliamentary proceedings of the 31st of May.§ On the 21st of June, he writes from Abrantes to the friend who had sent him the newspaper,-"I am very indifferent what the opinion is of our operations. I shall do the best I can with the force given to me; and if the people of England are not satisfied, they must send somebody else who will do better." As to one charge he felt that it was an imputation his honour: "I see that Mr. Whitbread accuses me of exaggeration, upon which is, in other words, lying." His system in describing his operations was entirely opposed to that of Napoleon. "To lie like a bulletin" was an art of war which he had no ambition to acquire. In the days before steam-navigation, before railways, before electric telegraphs, the proceedings of statesmen and of warriors had to be regulated by the arrival of news rather than by the dates of occurrences in distant places which despatches recorded. In 1809, "the posts come tiring on." Rumour goes before, "stuffing the ears of men with false reports.' Parliament rose on the 21st of June; and soon after came official intelligence, in rapid succession, of great events, on the Danube, on the Scheldt, on the Tagus. It is curious to compare the dates of arrival of intelligence in * Napier. +"Despatches," vol. iv. p. 344. Ibid., vol. iv. p. 325. § See the Speeches of Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Ponsonby, in Hansard, vol. xiv. 1809.] INTELLIGENCE OF IMPORTANT EVENTS. 513 London, and the dates of the events. The Speaker writes in his Diary,— "Whilst I was in the country, news arrived— "July 21.-Of Bonaparte passing the Danube, and defeating the Austrians." The final battle of the campaign, Wagram, took place on the 6th of July. The armistice, which took place on the 10th, was known in London on the 27th. "August 8.-Of the descent on Walcheren and investment of Flushing." The disembarkation took place on the 30th of July, the expedition having sailed on the 27th. "August 16.-Of sir Arthur Wellesley's defeat of the French at Talavera." This victory was gained on the 27th of July. In narrating these events we shall see how the knowledge of them bore upon the measures of the English government; or ought to have borne. Each event had a distinct relation to the others. The course of history is like the progress of a well-conducted fiction, in which no incident is without its bearing upon the plot. But we shall also see what amazing changes have been wrought by the rapidity of communication in our own day. Had steam and electricity proclaimed to the English Cabinet in the middle of July the news of the armistice between Austria and France, it is clear that the most rash administration would not have ordered an expedition to sail on the 27th, as a diversion to Austria, when Austria's war was ended. Assuming that the sailing of the expedition had been countermanded, and the news of the battle of Talavera on the 27th of July had travelled from the Tagus to the Thames at the beginning of August, it is clear that the most supine ministry would have sent to Portugal a large proportion of those troops which were shipped for the Scheldt: the necessary weakening of the British army by the sanguinary battle might thus have been speedily repaired. When the news did come, the opportunity was gone. Earl Temple (afterwards duke of Buckingham) writes to his father," We have not the means of reinforcing Wellesley. If half the troops which are now knocking their heads against Flushing were available, an important blow might still be struck in Spain."* The victory of Talavera, most men thought, would have no permanent results for good, because the French were too strong. Living in the times which knew of no such triumphs of science as we enjoy, the government could form no certain combinations when they attempted large operations upon different points. They could only speculate upon results in detail, and they too often speculated wrongly. It was the folly of that day to attempt too much and too little; to make a show of activity in many quarters without directing a great effort upon one paramount object. * 66 |